Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

In new strategy, Panetta plans even smaller army

Defense secretary will unveil plan to cut billions from defense budget

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45880843...ew_york_times/

This is better known as the "YOU ARE BROKE STRATEGY"

Which just so happens to free up more money needed for the Interior of the U.S. Security

Three NH Newspapers Endorse Ron Paul for President

North Country publications back the “Straight Talking Texan” in wake of his strong Iowa finish

CONCORD, NH – The Littleton Courier, Berlin Reporter, and Coos County Democrat all announced today their endorsements of 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

The endorsements come on the heels of the 12-term Congressman from Texas’s strong top-three finish in the Iowa Caucus giving one of two viable tickets out of the Hawkeye State.

“Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been in the lead for months,” wrote the editors, “but voters still seem desperate for an alternative — there’s always another candidate pulling stronger or almost as strong numbers in the polls. Voters have lost faith in Obama, but they are not sold on Romney to replace him.”

Congressman Ron Paul, however, “has never voted to raise a tax and voted against all of the bailouts that have riled up Tea Partiers and Occupy Wall Streeters alike,” they continued. “His prediction that the United States can no longer afford the economic cost of our overseas commitments makes many Republicans uncomfortable, possibly by the very truth of the assertion. For decades he has been that rare sort of politician who speaks what he believes to be the truth and doesn’t flutter in the wind of public opinion. That could not be said of Obama or Romney.

“Powerful leaders like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan change the political landscape,” the editors concluded. “This is what Ron Paul would do for our country and why we support him.”

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/0...for-president/

Revolution in Iowa: How Ron Paul is Changing the GOP and American Politics

Last night, two big government Republicans of the George W. Bush mold tied for first place in Iowa. This will continue to make headlines until New Hampshire, much like Mike Huckabee’s unexpected win did in 2008. But like Huckabee, in the grand scheme of things Romney and Santorum’s moment is already yesterday’s headline, and a fairly insignificant one at that. For keen political observers, last night’s top headline unquestionably belonged to Ron Paul. In fact, the future of the Republican Party belongs to Paul. Last night’s 21% showing was by no means the beginning of this shift, but was certainly the strongest electoral indicator to date of its enduring power. Explains The American Conservative Editor Daniel McCarthy;

Five years ago, no one, not even Congressman Paul, would have imagined that 21 percent of voters in a hotly contested Republican caucus would support the Texas congressman’s brand of antiwar, constitutional conservatism and libertarianism. Paul didn’t just improve on his 2008 showing last night, he’s brought his philosophy from an asterisk in the Republican Party of George W. Bush to as much as a fifth of the vote in the GOP of 2012; there’s a fair chance he’ll win 20 percent again, or close to it, in New Hampshire.

Paul hasn’t come as far as quickly as the religious right did in the 1970s and ’80s or the Goldwater movement did in the 1960s. But those are the closest parallels to what he’s achieving, and the change he’s bringing about is arguably more profound. (The religious right, after all, could adapt and build upon pre-existing conservative infrastructure in the ’70s. The Paul movement is almost starting from scratch.)

More significant than the overall percentage Paul claimed last night, however, is the 48 percent he won of the under-30 vote. This augurs more than just a change in the factional balance within the GOP. It’s suggestive of a generational realignment in American politics. The fact that many of these young people do not consider themselves Republican is very much the point: Paul’s detractors cite that as a reason to discount them, but what it really means is that the existing ideological configuration of U.S. politics doesn’t fit the rising generation. They’re not Republicans, but they’re voting in a Republican primary: at one time, that same description applied to Southerners, social conservatives, and Reagan Democrats, groups that were not part of the traditional GOP coalition and whose participation completely remade the party…

The old pillars of politics don’t go away… but weight shifts to other structures over time. Paul has inaugurated such an architectonic shift.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/0...ican-politics/

BILL OF RIGHTS IS NO MORE

By Chuck Baldwin
January 5, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

While most Americans were celebrating the holidays, President Barack Obama quietly signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” into law. Obama had initially said he would veto the bill which contains the draconian language authorizing the US military to seize and incarcerate US citizens without warrant, due process, trial, etc. Of course, Obama quickly changed his mind after the bill passed both houses of Congress.

When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that in essence said, “I have the power to detain Americans... but I won’t.” See this report here.

Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under military rule. And what is even more astonishing is the manner in which the national press corps, and even the so-called “conservative” talking heads, have either completely ignored it, or have actually defended it. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al., should be ashamed of themselves!

At this juncture, I want to highly encourage my readers to review two columns written by my constitutional attorney son, Tim Baldwin. He has written two masterful columns explaining the draconian provisions of the NDAA and responding to those irresponsible journalists who fail to understand and warn the American people regarding the horrific implications of the NDAA.

This is Tim’s column explaining the NDAA

And this is Tim’s column, which rebukes journalists who choose to stick their heads in the sand regarding the NDAA:

Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com has also written a great piece regarding the seriousness of the NDAA. He begins his report saying, “One of the most extraordinary documents in human history--the Bill of Rights--has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the ‘legal’ right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.

“In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year's Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.

“This is the law that will cement Obama's legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America's pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany's war crimes look like child's play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming ‘impeachment!’”

Adams is absolutely right! Liberals are as bad as conservatives when it comes to overlooking traitorous behavior when it is perpetrated by one of their own.

Adams goes on to say, “Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, ‘Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…’

“Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the ‘the flexibility on which our safety depends’ means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama's signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama's momentary intentions on how he ‘wishes’ to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.”

See Adams report here.

Continued Below

Signed into law by President George W. Bush, the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act effectively eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Now, the NDAA of 2012, signed into law by President Barack Obama, has effectively eviscerated the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendments to the US Constitution. Note that it has not mattered one whit whether it was a Republican or Democrat President or Congress in power at the time. Both parties in Washington, D.C., have superintended over the deliberate and unabashed dismantlement of the Bill of Rights. And, of course, we must all realize that for all intents and purposes--and with very few exceptions--both parties in Washington, D.C., have ignored the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution for decades.

We should also add that the First Amendment was pretty much expunged in 1962 and 1963 when the US Supreme Court outlawed the public acknowledgment of God. And the Second Amendment suffered a major setback with the passage of the Nazi-like Gun Control Act of 1968. And, of course, the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision also effectively annihilated the right to life clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Therefore, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, over the past several decades, the US Congress, the US Supreme Court, and the US Presidency have collaborated together to strip the American people of the protections and safeguards of their liberties contained in what must be recognized--along with the Declaration of Independence--as the Holy Grail of liberty: the Bill of Rights.

So, how long will it be before the President of the United States will actually act upon the power that has been granted him under the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA of 2012? How long will it be before the US military is ordered to turn their guns on the American citizenry? How long will it be before American citizens begin disappearing in much the same way that the people in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s China disappeared?

What will be the “national emergency” that triggers the implementation of these Hitlerian laws? Another 9-11-style attack maybe? Who knows? One thing is certain: these laws are not painstakingly written, debated, and passed into law for the fun of it! These laws are on the books for a reason: the federal government fully intends to implement these laws at some point! You can count on that!

And once more I need to remind readers that the only Presidential candidate that is sounding the alarm regarding this persistent and deliberate erosion of our liberties is Congressman Ron Paul.

I am reminded of the sagacious words of America’s most celebrated jurist Daniel Webster. He said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.” So, I guess it’s time to start asking the question: Just who is left within these States United that truly love liberty and are willing to guard and defend it? Because one thing is certain: the vast majority of the miscreants in Washington, D.C., sure aren’t going to do it.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2012 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck's complete bio here.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin682.htm

George Bush II or Barack Obama

Ryan James Girdusky
Jan 05, 2012

Imagine for a moment that the Twenty Second Amendment to the constitution was abolished and George W. Bush in a brokered convention is given the Republican nomination against Barack Obama. Should Republicans vote for him again?

This is the question I peg to self-defined conservatives who make up the majority of Republican primary voters when they state they are voting for Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum.

Hasn’t big government conservatism, whatever that means, done enough damage to not only our cause and our party, but to our country too? Why would anyone choose liberalism that vows to love the Tea Party, the troops, and Ronald Reagan, but in the end will be more Wilsonian than Wilson, expand government more than Johnson, and creates more debt than Barack Obama?

Republicans vote for the aforementioned men because they have been told they have to, because the media which hates conservatives ideals as much as they hate Western civilization, Christianity, and Sarah Palin, has told us it is the only acceptable choices.

Understandably someone may love Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney. Some may see the expansion of government, destruction of our currency, loss of our sovereignty, the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, and end of voluntary communal association to fix local issues as not a real problem. And if the notion that an ever expanding government has not in fact decapitated the traits of American community and rugged individualism (“American Exceptionalism” is just too cliché a phrase) then by all means, break out a soap box and stand for more big government republicanism.

Whether it be Santorum’s support for Medicare Part D, an unfunded war in Iraq, or career as what Eric Erickson refers to of being a pro-life statist; Gingrich’s lifelong habit of speaking loudly and carrying a small stick: on healthcare mandates, global warming, amnesty for illegals, or stopping work requirements for welfare; Perry’s support for instate tuition for illegal aliens, nearly doubling the budget and tripling the debt as governor of Texas; or Mitt Romney (add your own flip-flop/Romney care/abortion joke here).

Understandably, there is no perfect candidate, like there is no perfect person.

I am not looking for perfection, if I was I’d be a liberal.

I’m looking for a candidate that has dedication, prudence, prescription, and is not afraid to call a spade a spade. It would be wonderful if America was in a period of transition as we were in the early twentieth century, as if we were the shining city on a hill.

The truth is we are a nation in decline, a people lost to the false god of our own decadence. We can deny it, we can call those who believe it “unpatriotic“, to that this writer believes the greatest difference between pessimists and optimists is that pessimists are usually more well informed.

Sobering times such as these require a serious, thoughtful conservative. That is why the only candidate who can help America to reduce the size and scope of government and bring back basic conservative principles that man is Congressman Ron Paul.

The congressman has his faults, such as hand gestures during his debate for example. There are the newsletters, which for every political observer should love for only the fact that it has made the mainstream media play to republicans racial sensitivities, these being the same republicans the media has accused of racism at every opportunity since President Obama was candidate Obama. There’s Ron Paul’s foreign policy, some view as a flaw and a weakness. It is not so much that Ron Paul is pursuing a weak foreign policy as much as he is not like the rest of the Republican field which plays to the insane and insecure voting blocs of the party.

The largest issue that seems to hang over the Congressman Paul’s head is that of electability. This an understandable concern, yet it is one that has been created by the media. Mitt Romney only one term as governor of Massachusetts and in the 2008 Republican primary he won 11 out of 30 competitions, most of them being caucuses. Despite his lack of real victories the media has created this hype that he can appeal to moderates and democrats. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that appeals to such demographic. It’s Ron Paul’s anti-war, anti-wall street, populist message that has the widest appeal for a general electorate.

In a recent Des Moines Register poll, Ron Paul is viewed as the most concerned about reducing government debt (42%), most consistent (35%), most likely to reduce spending on war and foreign aid (61%), the least ego driven (28%), the best at relating to ordinary Iowans (20%), and the most dedicated to limiting the influence of government (44%). If this is an election about heart and character, Ron Paul already won it hands down. Republican primary voters need to vote with their heart instead of what the media-industrial complex has put in their head on Paul‘s supposed unelectablity.

To reiterate the question, if the election was George W. Bush running again, should Republicans vote for him? I say no, they should not.

For all the horrible things you can say about Barack Obama as a president, he has given the Republicans a chance to find some principles again, principles they lost when one of their own was expanding government recklessly. And if the Republican Party is given another chance at the oval office, it should at least be someone who will uphold conservative principles while they are there. Big government Republicanism creates apathy amongst the general public and cynicism amongst the base.

I don’t have to make the decision of big government vs. bigger government. Dr. Ron Paul cured my apathy.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ryanj...ama/page/full/

Ron Paul Forecasts Military Conflict With Iran

January 2, 2012 by Sam Rolley


A picture released by Fars News Agency on Dec. 29, 2011, shows a U.S aircraft carrier spotted in an area of the Iranian navy ongoing maneuver zone on the Sea of Oman, near the Strait of Hormuz.

Ron Paul said speaking at an Iowa event last week that Iran would be justified in responding to U.S. sanctions by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.

“I think we’re looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran,” Paul told an audience at the Hotel Pattee in Perry, Iowa, according to Los Angeles Times.

Paul contends that the actions currently being taken by the United States against Iran are setting the stage for yet another Mideast conflict. If he were President, Paul said, he would not respond to Iran’s threat of closing the strait with military action, but would report to Congress who could declare war if they wished.

The Republican candidate said a blockade on the strait would be the most likely response to tighter sanctions because Iran has “no weapons of mass destruction” and shutting down the strait is “the most” it could do.

Iran’s top naval commander, Habibollah Sayyari, told the country’s state television last Wednesday that closing the Strait of Hormuz would be “easier than drinking a glass of water” for Iranian armed forces, but some U.S. analysts disagree.

According to CNBC, researchers familiar with the strait say that Iran’s navy does not have the size or resources to carry out a sustained blockade, but could cause problems with mines and missiles. The Bahrain-based U.S. Fifth Fleet is nearby and keeping a close eye on Iran’s activities and said last week that any disruption in the area “would not be tolerated.” Mine-laying or missile activity will likely generate a U.S. response.

http://www.personalliberty.com/news/...ith-iran/?eiid=

Why Ron Paul Matters

by Edward H. Crane

This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on December 31, 2011.



The controversy surrounding decades-old newsletters to which GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul lent his name is regrettable. First, it is regrettable because the sometimes bigoted, intolerant content of those newsletters is inconsistent with the views of the congressman as understood by those of us who know him. Yet, while Mr. Paul disavows supporting those ideas, he refuses to repudiate his close association with their likely source, Lew Rockwell, head of the Alabama-based Mises Institute.

Second, the New York Times editorialized recently that these unsavory writings "will leave a lasting stain on ... the libertarian movement." That is wishful thinking on the part of the Times, but it adds to the background noise surrounding Mr. Paul's candidacy, obscuring the real libertarian policy initiatives that have made his candidacy the most remarkable development of the 2012 campaign.

Ron Paul's libertarian campaign has traction because so many Americans respond to his messages:

Edward H. Crane is co-founder and president of the Cato Institute.
More by Edward H. Crane

• Tax and spending. If ever there were sound and fury signifying nothing, it has to be the recent "debate" over the budget. Covered by the media as though it was negotiations on the Treaty of Versailles, the wrestling match between Republicans and Democrats centered on the nearly trivial question of whether the $12 trillion increase in the national debt over the next decade should be reduced by 3% or 2%.

Mr. Paul would cut the federal budget by $1 trillion immediately. He can't do it, of course, but voters sense he really wants to. As Milton Friedman once explained, the true tax on the American people is the level of spending — the resources taken from the private sector and employed in the public sector. Whether financed from direct taxation, inflation or borrowing, spending is the burden.

• Foreign policy and military spending. As the only candidate other than Jon Huntsman who says it is past time to bring the troops home from Afghanistan, Mr. Paul has tapped into a stirring recognition by limited-government Republicans and independents that an overreaching military presence around the world is inconsistent with small, constitutional government at home.

The massive cost of these interventions, in treasure and blood, highlights what a mistake they are, as sensible people on the left and right recognized from the beginning. Of course we want a strong military capable of defending the United States, but our current expenditures equal what the rest of the world spends, which makes little sense. It is futile to try to be the world's policeman — to try to create an American Empire as so many neoconservatives promote. And we can't afford it.

• Civil liberties. Libertarians often differ with conservatives over issues related to civil liberties. Mr. Paul's huge support among young people is due in large part to his fierce commitment to protecting the individual liberties guaranteed us in the Constitution. He would work to repeal significant parts of the so-called Patriot Act. Its many civil liberties transgressions include the issuance by the executive branch of National Security Letters (a form of administrative subpoena) without a court order, and the forbiddance of American citizens from mentioning that they have received one of these letters at the risk of jail.

The Bush and Obama administrations have claimed the right to incarcerate an American citizen on American soil, without charge, without access to an attorney, for an indefinite period.

President Obama even claims the right to kill American citizens on foreign soil, without due process of law, for suspected terrorist activities. Meanwhile, the Stop Online Piracy Act moving through the House is a clear effort by the federal government to censor the Internet. Mr. Paul stands up against all this, which should and does engender support from limited government advocates in the GOP.

• Austrian economics. Mr. Paul is often criticized for references to what some consider obscure economists of the so-called Austrian School. People should read them before criticizing. Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek and his mentor Ludwig von Mises were two of the greatest economists and social scientists ever to live.

Modern Austrian School economists such as Lawrence H. White, now at George Mason University, and Fred Foldvary at Santa Clara University predicted the housing bubble and the recession that followed the massive, multitrillion-dollar malinvestment caused by government redirection of capital into housing. Mr. Paul, like Austrian School economists, understands that we would be better off with a gold standard, competing currencies or a monetary rule than with the arbitrary and discretionary powers of our out-of-control Federal Reserve.

Mr. Paul should be given credit for his efforts to promote these ideas and other libertarian policies, all of which would make America better off. He'd be the first to admit he's not the most erudite candidate to make the case, but surely part of his appeal is his very genuine persona.

Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, and his opposition to the Nafta and Cafta free trade agreements in the name of doctrinal purity are at odds with most libertarians.

As for the Ron Paul newsletters, the best response was by my colleague David Boaz when the subject was raised publicly in 2008. About them he wrote in the Cato Institute's blog:

"Those words are not libertarian words. Maybe they reflect 'paleoconservative' ideas, though they're not the language of Burke or even Kirk. But libertarianism is a philosophy of individualism, tolerance, and liberty. As Ayn Rand wrote, 'Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.' Making sweeping, bigoted claims about all blacks, all homosexuals, or any other group is indeed a crudely primitive collectivism. Libertarians should make it clear that the people who wrote those things are not our comrades, not part of our movement, not part of the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick. Shame on them."

Support for dynamic market capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism), social tolerance, and a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism is a combination of views held by a plurality of Americans. It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century. It is why the focus should be on Ron Paul's philosophy and his policy proposals in 2012.





http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?...eid=9f10aab62f


No offense here but I like reading Lew Rockwell...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/

Ron Paul Surging in New Hampshire Following Top-Tier Finish in Iowa

New survey shows Paul with double the poll numbers of the third place candidate, solidifying Paul’s position as the ‘Option to Romney’

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul is in second place in the key early voting state of New Hampshire with a remarkable 24 percent of the vote, according to a new poll.
The Washington Times/Zogby Analytics Poll, taken after the Iowa Caucuses Iowa shows, Rick Santorum with just 11 percent, and Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Perry earned just 9, 8, and 1 percent, respectively.

Poll highlights include an acknowledgment that Paul has an opportunity for growth, and that about half of all single voters support the 12-term Congressman from Texas.

“On the heels of his close third place finish at the Iowa Caucus, Ron Paul is polling a strong second place in New Hampshire. From here on out, it is a two-man race between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney given that one of the tickets out of Iowa was a dead-end due to Rick Santorum’s glaring lack of viability,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

“There are only two campaigns that have the resources and infrastructure to win the Republican nomination – and one of those organizations belongs to Ron Paul,” added Mr. Benton.

The poll of 498 likely primary voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points and ten percent undecided, showing Dr. Paul with the potential to catch and surpass Gov. Romney and win the Granite State.
To review the poll, please click here.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/0...inish-in-iowa/

Did Ron Paul Really Win Iowa?

Reports Business Insider:

DES MOINES — Ron Paul may have officially come in third… but if the campaign’s caucus strategy went off as planned, then Paul may actually be the real winner of the first Republican voting contest.

That’s because Paul’s massive organizational push in Iowa focused on both winning votes, and also on making sure that Paul supporters stuck around after the vote to make sure they were selected as county delegates — the first step towards being elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.

That’s because Iowa’s Republican caucuses are non-binding — they are technically just a straw poll, so once selected, delegates are free to vote for whichever presidential candidate they choose.

“Part of what we’ve been training the Ron Paul people to do is not to leave after the vote,” Dan Godzich, a senior campaign advisor, told BI. “Stay and get elected to the conventions and get us those delegates…”

By the eve of Election Day, Hay said she was confident that Paul would come away from Iowa with a strong majority of the state’s delegates. It’s a good first step toward making sure that Paul has a strong presence on the floor in Tampa this summer — something that his supporters believe will help force the Republican party to start reckoning with their Movement.

UPDATE: 1:40 a.m.
Sources close to the Paul campaign indicated Tuesday that they were happy with their delegate count. Although we couldn’t get specific numbers, a source told Business Insider that Paul nailed down the delegates in all of Iowa’s smaller counties, and made a strong showing in several larger ones.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/0...ally-win-iowa/